Talk:Origin of the Rashtrakuta dynasty

Untitled

The article says:

In Amoghavarsha's records, the Rashtrakutas called themselves Lattalura - Puravara -Dhisvara (लट्टलूरुपुरवराधीश्वर / இலட்டலூரபுரவராதீஸ்வரர்), implying thereby that they hailed from Lattalur or Latur in Osmanabad district of present day Maharashtra. It is opined that the area formerly formed the part of present day Karnataka as attested by the surviving vestiges of Kannada place - names, Kannada inscriptions and other cultural relics.[6].

The Rashtrakutas of Malkhed (Manyakheta, Gulbarga) were a different branch and could not be identified with those of Lattalur.

Amoghavarsha was a Rashtrakuta of Malkhed. How can the Malkhed branch be different?

--Malaiya 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Maratha and the Rajputs, as communities, both emerged after the Rashtrakutas. The Rashtrakutas formed some of the clans of the Rajputs, and some of the clans of the Marathas.

How can the Rashtrakutas be derived from Marathas or Rajputs who came after them?

--Malaiya 05:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt, the Rashtrakutas were of a Rode origin. This is fully confirmed when we visit Erode in Tamil Nadu. In Tamil language, very often an E/I is prefixed to the corresponding Hindi or Sanskrit name. Example is Ravan, who is also called Iravan in Tamil language. This Erode has a fort, which is said to have been built by the Rashtrakuta dynasty. Very clearly, Erode is related to the Rode of present-day Haryana as is self-evident from the name of the town itself.

Comment on:

Rashtrakutas of Malkhed were Marathi speaking and the anchestors of Marathas.

No, they were not Marathi speaking. The reference cited mentions that. However they were obviously the ancestors of some of the Maratha clans.

--Malaiya 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta belonged to Abhira stock

(Elliot,Numismata Orientalia,Appendix,p.149'Muliya Thimmappavva Kannada Desa Tattsavu Dharwar.1954.p.6)says that they were of Abhira stock. http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=YISRTfmfFMPXcdnCtYkH&ct=result&id=m54tAAAAMAAJ&dq=abhiras+of+jodhpur&q=abhira

Encyclopaedia of Indian culture, Volume 4

References

Rashtrakuta kings could not be Abhira

The word Rashtrakuta means Chief of the Rashtra. Here, the Rashtra could mean nation but in reality means the Rashtra or Rashtri people in this context. It is a different fact that finally they ended up not only as chiefs of a particular tribe but also chiefs of multiple nations. That is precisely the reason Arabs called them one of the four principal empires in the world. This Rashtri complex needs to be well understood for someone to get a good grip over the Rashtrakuta ancestry. The Rashtra or Rashtri upon ap-bhramsa becomes Ratta or Rathi. This same northern rendition becomes Raddi in the south. So, what needs to be understood here is that these Rathi/Raddi/Reddy were a nation-wide farming community in history. Reddy is still the same in Andhra and the Rathis are still represented by the Marathis in Maharashtra region but up north, most of the Rathis in Rajasthan and Haryana are now either Maheswaris or Jats. But originally, these Jats of the northern plains and Rajasthan were also a part of this same Rathi/Raddi complex.

The biggest clue is that in the foothills of Himachal even today, the Rathis are the lower social status kinsfolk of Thakurs and they are the ones who wield the yoke or the plough. It was the same Kshatriya caste that was known by two different epithets, Rashtrakuta or chiefs of the Rashtras and Gurjar Pratihar or protectors of the Gurjaras. The name of this Kshatriya tribe that largely disappeared from multiple parts of the country after the Turkic invasion is Ror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.109.191 (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Raj era sources

Raj era sources dealing with caste and history are not considered to be reliable, per the consensus of umpteen discussions at WP:RSN, WT:INB and elsewhere. Why, then, are so many being used in this article? It needs to be updated to reflect modern sources and/or pruned to remove the dodgy stuff written in the 1930s etc. I realise that this is intended to be some sort of overview of theories etc but, really, why give credence to unreliable sources? - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta Vokkaliga origin

It has been well established in the article that Rashtrakutas were of Kannada Origin. It has also been mentioned that they were of Dravidian Cultivator origin. The chief cultivating caste of Karnataka are the Vokkaligas. Kindly mention the possible Vokkaliga origin.

Shetty, Sadanand Ramakrishna (1994). Banavasi Through the Ages. Banavasi (India): Printwell. p. 121.:“The community of the land tillers or agriculturists was known as vokkaligas. The importance given to the cultivation of land is amply demonstrated by the fact that numerous tanks were dug and irrigational facilities were provided at various places. Some of the Rashtrakuta inscriptions found in the Banavasimandala carry the depiction of a plough at the top. There is a view that the Rashtrakutas were originally prosperous cultivators, who later on dominated the political scene. Some of the inscriptions refer to them as Kutumbinah which is interpreted as meaning cultivators.”

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=cUhuAAAAMAAJ&dq=vokkaliga+rashtrakuta&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=vokkaliga+rashtrakuta Cyberanthropologist (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Shetty references Shamba Joshi. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I dont think there is a need to go specifically into theCaste of the Rashtrakutas. The fact that they may have been Kannadigas is already mentioned and that should suffice in a summary article.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Castes like Telugu Reddy, Marathi Marathas are mentioned in the article despite historians like Altekar proving the contrary (Even this is mentioned in the origin of Rahstrkutas article, but you’ve let Reddy and Maratha stay). Even obscure origin theories from Punjab are mentioned. It’s only fair that the Chief Cultivating Kannada caste, the Vokkaligas are mentioned.

Kannad origin isn’t sufficient as that is not an ethnic identity like caste.

Kindly allow the addition of Vokkaligas for neutrality at least to this page which deals specifically with the origin of the Rashtrakutas, if not the main Rashtrakuta summary article.

Cyberanthropologist (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Origin of the Rashtrakuta Empire → Origin of the Rashtrakuta dynasty – While I did support such a move from "Rashtrakutas" to the "Rashtrakuta Empire" for the Rashtrakuta Empire article, this article is about the origin of the dynasty itself not the empire that was ruled by the dynasty, the page should be moved accordingly. AlvaKedak (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom, more WP:PRECISE, clearly about the dynasty. People arriving at the current title would expect this to be a about a founding myth/legend, so WP:ASTONISH applies here. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. The existing article content largely focuses on the lineage / linguistic affiliation / social group of the dynasty, not the circumstances in which the empire was established. utcursch | talk 15:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.